2010 Primaries Thread (It's all over now, baby blue)

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

PPP teases everyone with a tweet about their NH/DE polls:

"Looking like a better chance of an upset in Delaware than New Hampshire"

Good, Ayotte is much worthier of winning her primary than Castle is his.

PPP teases everyone with a tweet about their NH/DE polls:

"Looking like a better chance of an upset in Delaware than New Hampshire"

Uh oh that means O'Donnell probably has momentum now.

I thought you wanted more Republican women candidates?

[redcommander]

PPP teases everyone with a tweet about their NH/DE polls:

"Looking like a better chance of an upset in Delaware than New Hampshire"

Good, Ayotte is much worthier of winning her primary than Castle is his.

PPP teases everyone with a tweet about their NH/DE polls:

"Looking like a better chance of an upset in Delaware than New Hampshire"

Uh oh that means O'Donnell probably has momentum now.

I thought you wanted more Republican women candidates?

Yes, but not crazy ones like O'Donnell. She wouldn't even become a better candidate after the primary like Angle has. Her baggage is too devastating for her to be electable in a state like Delaware.

[You kip if you want to...]

PPP teases everyone with a tweet about their NH/DE polls:

"Looking like a better chance of an upset in Delaware than New Hampshire"

Good, Ayotte is much worthier of winning her primary than Castle is his.

PPP teases everyone with a tweet about their NH/DE polls:

"Looking like a better chance of an upset in Delaware than New Hampshire"

Uh oh that means O'Donnell probably has momentum now.

I thought you wanted more Republican women candidates?

Yes, but not crazy ones like O'Donnell. She wouldn't even become a better candidate after the primary like Angle has. Her baggage is too devastating for her to be electable in a state like Delaware.

HAHAhAHAHAHA. Thanks, I needed a laugh.

[SPC]

As of right now, I would guess that Castle and Ayotte are both slight favorites to win their primaries, but not by much. Magellan Strategies showed Lamontagne with momentum two weeks ago, which seems to be a similar position to how Angle was two weeks before her primary. However, Ayotte hasn't made any major gaffes and is apparently doing well in the PPP poll (although Magellan did better than PPP in Kentucky, and PPP was off in Colorado). I would guess Ayotte wins by two points over Lamontagne, with Bender and Binnie in the high teens.

For Delaware, I initially compared Castle's ratings among conservatives to Murkowski's ratings among conservatives and concluded that he was safe (60-40 over O'Donnell). However, O'Donnell's campaigning may have lowered Castle's ratings, and the fact that Palin and DeMint are now getting involved probably means that they know something that we don't. Plus, PPP's hints probably show that Castle is only narrowly ahead of O'Donnell. Here, I would also put it at Castle 51-O'Donnell 49, although I have little confidence in either prediction. Both are complete tossups in my mind, which might be a relief for Democratic chances in the Senate (before the primaries, I put it at 63%, that's bound to go up in Delaware and New Hampshire if Lamontagne wins).

[tpfkaw]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

[Sam Spade]

PPP teases everyone with a tweet about their NH/DE polls:

"Looking like a better chance of an upset in Delaware than New Hampshire"

Probably means Castle ahead by single digits or under 50%, with Ayotte being ahead by double-digits in the multi-candidate race.

IMO, Castle is the more likely to be upset by far, (I don't see how Ayotte loses - but NH voters are sometimes a bit strange, so hard to 100% call) but I need to recheck where the Republican registered voters are in Delaware.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

[tpfkaw]

Indeed.  Mike Castle votes with the Democrats on everything substantive except taxes and school choice, and even on those issues he's hardly a sure thing.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Indeed.  Mike Castle votes with the Democrats on everything substantive except taxes and school choice, and even on those issues he's hardly a sure thing.

So basically, Castle sucks. What took so long for the tea parties to unite and mobilize for his defeat?

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

[tpfkaw]

BTW, Libby, I think you might be better served using your sig to promote Dave Westlake over neocon Ron Johnson.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Also, I'm 95% positive both Palin and DeMint have stated that they want the Republicans to take over Congress this year. How the hell is nominating Christine O'Donnell going to accomplish that?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also, I'm 95% positive both Palin and DeMint have stated that they want the Republicans to take over Congress this year. How the hell is nominating Christine O'Donnell going to accomplish that?

We are currently trying to figure that out.

BTW, Libby, I think you might be better served using your sig to promote Dave Westlake over neocon Ron Johnson.

Yep, HARRY REID FOR TWO MORE YEARS AS MAJORITY LEADER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better.  

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

BTW, Libby, I think you might be better served using your sig to promote Dave Westlake over neocon Ron Johnson.

That race hasn't really gotten much attention and I haven't been following it. I only really find out about these things on here.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

[tpfkaw]

BTW, Libby, I think you might be better served using your sig to promote Dave Westlake over neocon Ron Johnson.

Yep, HARRY REID FOR TWO MORE YEARS AS MAJORITY LEADER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Johnson wins, I'm supporting Feingold, as the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act (Johnson is for it).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I can explain it easily. They have a niche and that is the GOP abandoned their principles for electability and lost, and too an extent that is true. But once you make a fuss over it to rally the base, it is tough to redirect the sheep based on electability in cases like this. They might just turn on DeMint and Palin, you know.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

Could certainly be better than having a "big tent" GOP majority like we had until 2006: spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government. Essentially doing all the same things the Democrats do until the people inevitably decide to vote the real Democrats back in.

Really it's best not just from an ideological standpoint, but also for the future of the Republican Party, to get rid of the sort of big government "moderates" who wrecked their party's credibility during the Bush years in the first place.


Nothing positive would get accomplished in a Senate filled with people like Castle, Murkowski, Grayson, Snowe, Collins, etc.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

Could certainly be better than having a "big tent" GOP majority like we had until 2006: spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government. Essentially doing all the same things the Democrats do until the people inevitably decide to vote the real Democrats back in.

Really it's best not just from an ideological standpoint, but also for the future of the Republican Party, to get rid of the sort of big government "moderates" who wrecked their party's credibility during the Bush years in the first place.


Nothing positive would get accomplished in a Senate filled with people like Castle, Murkowski, Grayson, Snowe, Collins, etc.

OK, but the Democrats are "spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government" much more so than the Republicans did during the Bush administration. Plus, keep in mind that if the Republicans take over Congress, they will do more to limit government if it means going up against Obama. When the Republicans take over the White House, you might have a point, but the Republicans will push for more limited government out of partisanship.

Also, if the GOP was successful in getting rid of the "big government moderates, don't you think that might push voters away?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

Could certainly be better than having a "big tent" GOP majority like we had until 2006: spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government. Essentially doing all the same things the Democrats do until the people inevitably decide to vote the real Democrats back in.

Really it's best not just from an ideological standpoint, but also for the future of the Republican Party, to get rid of the sort of big government "moderates" who wrecked their party's credibility during the Bush years in the first place.


Nothing positive would get accomplished in a Senate filled with people like Castle, Murkowski, Grayson, Snowe, Collins, etc.

Castle, Grayson, Snowe and Collins have nothing to do with what destroyed the GOP majority. The majority was lost because of situation in iraq (Not the fact we were in Iraq) and incompetetance by Republicans of all the ideological strands. Punishing all moderates for the stupidity of Republicans all across the spectrum is counter-productive and dangerous?

Who uses only one criteria, Libertas? You do.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

Could certainly be better than having a "big tent" GOP majority like we had until 2006: spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government. Essentially doing all the same things the Democrats do until the people inevitably decide to vote the real Democrats back in.

Really it's best not just from an ideological standpoint, but also for the future of the Republican Party, to get rid of the sort of big government "moderates" who wrecked their party's credibility during the Bush years in the first place.


Nothing positive would get accomplished in a Senate filled with people like Castle, Murkowski, Grayson, Snowe, Collins, etc.

Castle, Grayson, Snowe and Collins have nothing to do with what destroyed the GOP majority. The majority was lost because of situation in iraq (Not the fact we were in Iraq) and incompetetance by Republicans of all the ideological strands. Punishing all moderates for the stupidity of Republicans all across the spectrum is counter-productive and dangerous?

Who uses only one criteria, Libertas? You do.

Also I think voter fatigue had something to do with it. The GOP had been in control of Congress for 12 years. It doesn't surprise me voters wanted a change after that time.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

Could certainly be better than having a "big tent" GOP majority like we had until 2006: spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government. Essentially doing all the same things the Democrats do until the people inevitably decide to vote the real Democrats back in.

Really it's best not just from an ideological standpoint, but also for the future of the Republican Party, to get rid of the sort of big government "moderates" who wrecked their party's credibility during the Bush years in the first place.


Nothing positive would get accomplished in a Senate filled with people like Castle, Murkowski, Grayson, Snowe, Collins, etc.

OK, but the Democrats are "spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government" much more so than the Republicans did during the Bush administration.

I don't know about that; I see the current regime as more of a continuation of the last one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd rather see Obama defeated in 2012 than see a bunch of moderate losers take over Congress in 2010.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

Could certainly be better than having a "big tent" GOP majority like we had until 2006: spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government. Essentially doing all the same things the Democrats do until the people inevitably decide to vote the real Democrats back in.

Really it's best not just from an ideological standpoint, but also for the future of the Republican Party, to get rid of the sort of big government "moderates" who wrecked their party's credibility during the Bush years in the first place.


Nothing positive would get accomplished in a Senate filled with people like Castle, Murkowski, Grayson, Snowe, Collins, etc.

Castle, Grayson, Snowe and Collins have nothing to do with what destroyed the GOP majority. The majority was lost because of situation in iraq (Not the fact we were in Iraq) and incompetetance by Republicans of all the ideological strands. Punishing all moderates for the stupidity of Republicans all across the spectrum is counter-productive and dangerous?

Who uses only one criteria, Libertas? You do.

Also I think voter fatigue had something to do with it. The GOP had been in control of Congress for 12 years. It doesn't surprise me voters wanted a change after that time.

I don't think so. The Democrats had the House for 40 years. People nead a reason to vote people out of office. A war going badly, corruption, and anger of certain ideas pushed for the majority account for about 99% of the reason for the change in controll in 2006.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The NRA is to be expected - Castle is one of the most consistent opponents of gun rights in Congress.

This. I'm more fine with the NRA endorsing O'Donnell than I am Palin. After all, the NRA's just supposed to fight for gun rights, not make their partisan endorsements based on who is the most electable. Palin and DeMint however, should know better. 

Don't Palin and DeMint claim to support gun rights, be pro-life, and favor free markets? Why would they do endorse Castle, who is against all three?

Because at this time, they should be pushing for what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for conservatives. They both know that Christine O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this by the way), and that the Democrats will be handed the Delaware seat on a silver platter if O'Donnell is to win the nomination. I know Castle isn't very conservative, but O'Donnell won't win, and if Castle makes the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled Senate, than Castle is better for conservatism, as a Republican controlled Senate will be much more conservative than a Democratic one. Both DeMint and Palin are Republicans who have praised the GOP in the past (don't ask me to find an exact quote, but I'm almost positive they have both lauded the virtues of the Republican Party), and should be working to advance GOP interests (and therefore conservative interests, at least in comparison to the Democrats).

And if there is a conflict between conservative interests and partisan interests?

Then pick the best way to achieve both, which, if you ask me, is to get as many Republican seats in both houses of Congress as much as we can so that we can stop Obama's push for big government, and plant the seeds of conservative reform. You don't honestly believe that keeping Democratic majorities in Congress will be at all beneficial for conservative interests, do you?

Could certainly be better than having a "big tent" GOP majority like we had until 2006: spending recklessly, adding trillions to the national debt, wrecking the economy, expanding government. Essentially doing all the same things the Democrats do until the people inevitably decide to vote the real Democrats back in.

Really it's best not just from an ideological standpoint, but also for the future of the Republican Party, to get rid of the sort of big government "moderates" who wrecked their party's credibility during the Bush years in the first place.


Nothing positive would get accomplished in a Senate filled with people like Castle, Murkowski, Grayson, Snowe, Collins, etc.

Castle, Grayson, Snowe and Collins have nothing to do with what destroyed the GOP majority. The majority was lost because of situation in iraq (Not the fact we were in Iraq) and incompetetance by Republicans of all the ideological strands. Punishing all moderates for the stupidity of Republicans all across the spectrum is counter-productive and dangerous?

Sounds like you're still in the same fantasyland the rest of the GOP was stuck in in both 2006 and 2008.

Sorry, but Americans don't want to just turn back the clock to those glorious Bush years when big government Republicans ran the show. And no, Americans didn't vote out the Republicans because they wanted Congress to assault Iraq even more aggressively, despite the claims of McCain & Co with regard to their heroic "surge".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I use multiple criteria, as I implicitly indicated in the thread you started asking that very question.